Piers Morgan: “You come in here, brandish your little book as if I don’t know what’s in there--”

Breibart

“My little book? That’s the Constitution of the United States. It’s our founding document, Piers.” 

Looks like Piers lost the debate again.

Let's pull a quote from the transcript and look at it:

MORGAN: Explain to me this. I can't buy this. This is six packets of Suedafed, there one of the many companies that make this particular ingredient, which you can't buy legally in America. There we are, six packets. That is illegal for me to buy in that quantity in Wal-Mart, say, but I can buy an AR-15 military style assault rifle. I can then, as we saw with Holmes -- the shooter in Aurora -- go and get 6,000 rounds of ammunition from the internet and I can go and blow up a movie theater. Do you think that's right? [emphasis added]

Comment:

The shooter in Aurora got into the theater through the back way.  These were supposed to be exit only, but Holmes blocked it open on his way out and then re-entered.  That shouldn't be possible.  There was a hole in their security and Holmes exploited it.

Now, Morgan is using this argument of his to go after gun rights, but he doesn't even examine what really happened there and why.  Same with Sandy Hook.  Not enough security.

If you are going to have gun-free zones, you should be willing to supply adequate security.  That should be the law.  Adequate security would mean no illegal access through back doors.  It would mean a security check at the door and an armed guard at the entrance.

Every time some mass shooting occurs, the gun-rights people have to defend what our basic rights are according the Constitution of the United States.  This should not be so.  The real question should be asked of those who want to have these gun-free zones as to why they don't have adequate security at their facility.  After all, they are responsible for the safety of the people inside their facility.  If guns were allowed, that responsibility would fall upon the individuals themselves.   Those who impose gun-free zones are taking responsibility for the well-being of the people in their facility with their exclusion of guns, and by doing so, should be required to answer for why they failed in their task of providing adequate security when these violent events occur.